Hilary Slams Commercialisation Of Everest

Why can't the rest of us climb Everest? Should Sir Edmund have all the experiences and stop all the rest of us mere mortals from experiencing them too?

Agreed-mountineering is about exploration, and not everyone has the ability and skill to explore, but why should those same people be stopped from exploring and experiencing that which others have had the fortune to visit first. Ok, so it may only be for the rich, but if they can afford it and they are willing to take the risks...why shouldn't everyone climb the mountains? After all, as Mallory himself said, the best reason to climb it is "Because it's there".

However, I do of course see his point of view, just like Snowdon and Cairngorn, hoards of tourists would not be a good thing for Everest. The worlds highest peak is not the place for a complete novice climber and there have been many tragedies involving those with limited climbing experience, not least that of Mallorys inexperienced partner Andrew Irving.

On the subject of the Mallory and Irving Research Expedition, I thought that the team were very respectfull in their dealings with the body when they found it. It's legitimacy is given by the families agreement to the search, and by the prayers over the body and the covering by stones in a form of burial. It was an archeological expedition with a given goal, what difference is there between this expedition and another which discovers human remains from 500 years ago?

Surely the story of this great climber should be told and the tale of his demise, along with the evidence of his fall, only adds the the awe in which we should hold both Mallory and Irving.

I think the irony here is that Everest really is just for the rich - or at least those who have the drive and resource to raise the minimum of £20K or so that it costs to get onto the mountain. Around twice that if you're guided.

The technical 'qualifications' you need to climb on Everest are actually quite low. Steve Bell at Jagged Globe, who guide the mountain, looks for successful acclimatisation experience above 5000 metres and Scottish Grade 2 or above. That means, if you've walked up Kili successfully and knocked off a few easy gullies in Scotland, you too could theoretically go for the big one. It's better if you climb much harder as then you're going to move faster on easy technical ground, but it brought home to me how straightforward the climbing, rather than the conditions or the altitude, actually is.

I can reel off about 20 other mountains I'd rather climb for all sorts of reasons from technical hardness to sheer beauty, though I can see why people want to climb Everest.

My qualms about the Research Expedition were that it was a 'scientific' study which was financed on a commercial basis - the book, the film, the articles etc - which kind of invited sensationalism. The thing that struck me about the film was just how concerned the team were that someone else would pick up their radio transmissions and beat them to the scoop when they found the body. Why was that? You kind of conclude that it had something to do with marketing the story and making money from it.

But your basic point, that mountains shouldn't be for an elite, I totally agree with.

---

OutdoorsMagic Editor | jon@outdoorsmagic.com 

"...why shouldn't everyone climb the mountains? "

Well, as a general principle I'm all in favour of access to the mountains, but in the case of everest, there is a big problem with the sheer volume of people attempting it - just look at the mess at base camp, the queues for the summit, the litter at the South Col, etc...

Clearly something has to be done to limit numbers. I'm not really keen on the current approach of making it prohibitively expensive for the vast majority, because it seems like a rather artificial barrier to entry. I'd personally much rather see a rule like "no oxygen" - which would cut out 80-90% of the punters at a stroke, and would hopefully increase the skill level on the hill as well, which has to be a good thing from an accident prevention point of view ( If 'Thin Air' is to be beleived, a large proportion of everest fatalities stem from people who are relying on oxygen having their oxygen supplies fail.)

Of course, this means that mortals like me, and (I guess) you, wouldn't have a chance to do it. But so what? There are gazillions of smaller peaks that are just as challenging and as beautiful, if not more, so we can go and climb them instead.

I suppose the more serioius down side to this approach is that the revenue generated from expeditions must be a significant source of funding to the Nepalese government, and not something they would want to give up lightly - so I don't imagine things will change too soon

People are always decrying the mess at Base Camp, but I was there last year and, as a result of incessant clean ups, it really was just a big patch of dark morraine - no mess at all.

If I was going to be cynical -and why stop now? - I'd say that Everest is kind of the armchair mountaineer's mountain. There's always going to be interest in it, but it's a circus and we're getting into what Ed Douglas called 'micro-distinctions', 'the first man to climb Everest with a parrot on his shoulder', 'the fastest milkman up Everest' etc. Tami Knight's brilliant climbing cartoon book, Everest-The Ultimate Hump, said all this faster, more viciously and much funnier than I'll ever manage...

Look at it this way, if folk are flocking to Everest, they won't be clogging up other places. Same with the Inca Trail in Peru. Its magnetic attraction means that other superb treks in the area are all but deserted.

---

OutdoorsMagic Editor | jon@outdoorsmagic.com 

I have to say, that I wasn't particularly offended by the trip to discover Mallory as it's human nature to try and piece together bits of the jigsaw puzzle. I think we can get too precious about events like this. Other cultures simply wouldn't bat an eyelid about displaying a dead body (Lenin, Mother Teresa for example, even the cremations you see on the way down from Everest) and I think our rather clinical society makes us so removed from dealing with death that it almost becomes immoral to disturb a corpse at all.

However, there is a big big difference between discovering Mallory and going on an archeological expedition. If there wasn't, then the Elvis question would be easy enough to solve. Why don't we just go and dig him up and find out?

The basic concept of an expedition to discover Mallory was a good one - who with any interest in the subject wouldn't want to know what happened to him?

But the aggressive publicity-seeking, and in particular the publication of the corpse photographs, were quite at odds with the 'scientific' remit.

What disturbed me most was that those responsible were no grubby tabloid reporters, but respected professional mountaineers. They of all people should have been able to consider the implications of their actions. If Conrad Anker were to fall to his death, would he want pictures of his battered corpse displayed for his family and friends and everyone else to see? I suspect not, which is what makes their actions all the more contemptible.